A Council of Europe draft report and resolution urges the organization's 47 …

The global movement for governments to err on the side of electro-magnetic caution got a huge boost this month. The Council of Europe has issued a new draft resolution and report on device radiation safety that urges its 47 member nations to adopt a "precautionary principle" when it comes to cell phone safety. Such a principle would apparently include banning all mobile phones, DECT phones, WiFi and WLAN systems from classrooms as a measure to protect children.

Yes, you read that right. Here's resolution 8.3.2 of the draft: "ban all mobile phones, DECT phones or WiFi or WLAN systems from classrooms and schools, as advocated by some regional authorities, medical associations and civil society organisations."

The document will be discussed by the Council's Parliamentary Assembly at their meeting in Kyev, Ukraine on Friday. Authored by Luxembourg MP and Green Party activist Jean Huss, it contends that even if science isn't certain about low frequency radiation emanating from mobile phones and power lines, its member states should recognize that these devices "appear" to have "more or less potentially harmful, non-thermal, biological effects on plants, insects and animals, as well as the human body when exposed to levels that are below the official threshold values."

Despite the tentative conclusions of extant research on this problem, the report urges governments to "respect the precautionary principle" and revise their estimates of the levels at which non-ionising radiation can be regarded as unsafe.

"Waiting for high levels of scientific and clinical proof can lead to very high health and economic costs, as was the case in the past with asbestos, leaded petrol and tobacco."

Anxieties and fears

It's not every day that one reads an international report that more or less implies that using your iPhone might be as dangerous as smoking a pack of cigarettes a day. But the Council's stated mission is to "develop throughout Europe common and democratic principles," and it's clear that public worries over this issue will not wait for conclusive scientific research on the question of the impact of non-ionising frequencies on the human body.

This draft is obviously responsive to that global mood:

The potentially harmful effects of electromagnetic fields on the environment and human health have not yet been fully elucidated and a number of scientific uncertainties continue to exist in that regard. Nevertheless, anxieties and fears remain in wide sectors of the population over the health hazards posed by the waves, and also of the demands voiced by high-level scientists, by groupings of doctors and by the associations of concerned citizens which abound in many Council of Europe member states.

The resolution urges governments "to take all reasonable measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially to radio frequencies from mobile phones, and particularly the exposure to children and young people who seem to be most at risk from head tumours." These would include launching "information and awareness-raising campaigns" on their supposed risks.

And the document wants Europe to "pay particular attention" to "electrosensitive" people, defined as those "suffering from a syndrome of intolerance to electromagnetic fields and introduce special measures to protect them, including the creation of wave-free areas not covered by the wireless network."

This category of sensitivity would presumably include Mrs. Janice Tunnicliffe of the United Kingdom. The Telegraph reports that the Nottinghamshire woman "cannot bear to be anywhere near electromagnetic fields of any kind," including television sets, radio, or mobile phones.

iPhones "make me feel really sick within about 20 minutes of being near one," Tunnicliffe told the newspaper. "Wifi makes me feel like I have a clamp at the back of my head which is squeezing the life out of me."

Unblinded by science

This Council report is no doubt being read with interest here in San Francisco—my neck of the Ars Orbiting HQ. The city has been in a tizzy over the mobile phone radiation question for about a year, but recently backtracked on its cell phone emissions disclosure law, which would have required mobile phone retailers to display the Specific Absorption Rates of their devices in the show rooms. Fear of lawsuits from the mobile phone industry appears to have been the reason for taking the ordinance back to the drawing board.

The Euro-draft says that skepticism about the safety of these devices is understandable, given the recent past.

"It is certain that one cause of public anxiety and mistrust of the communication efforts of official safety agencies and governments lies in the fact that a number of past health crises or scandals," the document notes, "such those involving asbestos, contaminated blood, PCBs or dioxins, lead, tobacco smoking and more recently H1N1 flu were able to happen despite the work or even with the complicity of national or international agencies nominally responsible for environmental or health safety."

Matthew Lasar
Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz. Emailmatthew.lasar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@matthewlasar

So, low-power EM may potentially perhaps maybe cause adverse effects (with scientists who try very hard to study this not finding any evidence of it), so let's gut the technology. On the other hand, let's keep selling stuff like tobacco even though we know of severe problems it causes. Double standards much?

Do not worry they will be effected elsewhere. The future food- er workers will still be dumbed down and made docile by radiation emissions EVERYwhere else. It is what makes your planet so tasty- er- shiney= ALL those emisiions drool...

ALSO if education now being cut to 'save money' and you're worried about inet access?

Captain Crunch take to the lifeboats! Avast yee and board their ship- ours is sinking me mateys!

And into deep dark space away from the galaxy's civilizations the planet Terra drifted. No loss really IMO.

Hmmm random thought did I get carried away? Ah the whitecoated gentlepeople are here. Goodbye!

this thread should be a laugh with all the self proclaimed experts telling everyone how caution and discretion are stupid. Anyone want to play a game listing stuff that was once said to be OK, but in fact isn't? I'll start--partially hydrogenated oils.

This is going to have the same effect as banning guns on school property. If someone has an emergency, it will take longer to alert someone and for first responders to show. I think the dangers of not having a phone on hand (or an arm for that matter) are worse than the EM radiation that they suppose is unsafe.

However, if there is even a minute level of EM non-ionizing radiation considered to be harmful ... expect even more challenges to TSA scanners.

PSA before anyone starts confusing things: Unlike the "European Council" and the "Council of the European Union", the Council of Europe has nothing to do with the EU. (Russia is a member of the Council of Europe, for example, even though it doesn't belong to the EU.)

this thread should be a laugh with all the self proclaimed experts telling everyone how caution and discretion are stupid. Anyone want to play a game listing stuff that was once said to be OK, but in fact isn't? I'll start--partially hydrogenated oils.

How about living outside a bubble? We know that isn't safe. There are infectious agents in the air that can kill you. This is quite well documented. Do you live in a bubble? Why not?

To avoid being stupid, you have to try to intelligently balance risks against their costs, both monetary costs and costs in terms of quality of life. In the case of cell phone radiation, there are good physics reasons why it isn't expected to be dangerous at the low levels allowed by existing regulations. There are also dozens of studies showing no or little risk, including both large scale and reasonably long term studies. There is also the real world evidence of two decades of use without an increase in brain tumors in the general population.

this thread should be a laugh with all the self proclaimed experts telling everyone how caution and discretion are stupid.

Um yes, excessive caution and discretion can easily be stupid.

I take it you have a background in radiation biology, cancer biology, physics, epidemiology and genetics?

Stupidly many people with expertise in those fields repeatedly fail to find any way that cell phones can affect people's health just by radiating near them. Where is the cause for this alarm? Where is the pressing issue that could justify making this a "human rights" matter?

"To date, 46 studies involving 1175 volunteers with IEI-EMF have tested whether exposure to electro- magnetic fields can trigger the symptoms reported by this group. These studies have produced little evidence to suggest that this is the case or that individuals with IEI-EMF are particularly adept at detecting the presence of electromagnetic fields. On the other hand, many of these studies have found evidence that the nocebo effect is a sufficient explanation for the acute symptoms reported in IEI-EMF."

Basically, "sufferers" can't tell when true electromagnetic fields are present, but do experience symptoms when a fake device "emits" EMF.

Next thing you know, they'll be banning vaccines just to be on the safe side.

In other news, the Council of Europe has also issued an alert over the sun. "For too long this interstellar reactor has been pelting us with untold levels of harmful, potentially lethal, radiation. Steps must be taken to ensure people are protected against this deadly source."

London Fog, in response, has released a new line of umbrellas with aluminium sheets underneath the canvas.

(Edit: I wasn't really paying attention to who released the alert in the first place...)

In other news, the EU has also issued an alert over the sun. "For too long this interstellar reactor has been pelting us with untold levels of harmful, potentially lethal, radiation. Steps must be taken to ensure people are protected against this deadly source."

London Fog, in response, has released a new line of umbrellas with aluminium sheets underneath the canvas.

Thanks, but I'll wait for the line of umbrellas with the tin foil lining.

And don't forget to turn off all the fluorescent lights in the room - a monstrous 60 Hz field that makes the cell emissions look like a fart in a hurricane.

And remove all the energized mains wiring from the walls, as well. Fart/hurricane again.

Freaking idiots.

Hey, I take the bull by the horns: I smoke a cigarette, standing in front of the microwave as my food cooks (microwave bacon), talking on my cell, with every light in the house on, drinking a scotch. My hope is that all this stuff might transform me into some super creature with special powers 'n stuff.

Why would that stop the internet in classrooms? I hope all teachers ban phones in classrooms regardless of the "radiation thing". As for the radiation in cells phones....I have no idea...

Quote:

Here's resolution 8.3.2 of the draft: "ban all mobile phones, DECT phones or WiFi or WLAN systems from classrooms and schools, as advocated by some regional authorities, medical associations and civil society organisations."

This effectively ties students to the library which judging by most schools generally lack enough computers for more than one classroom at a time.

Whereas when I went to high school we got issued laptops. Which can have everyone connected at once with little fanfare.

Wireless signals are all around us millions of them fly by us everyday. I just think this is a lot of commotion for evidence that has been deemed inconclusive at best.

I will admit when I read that post I thought it said LAN I missed the W part. Still though most schools ban cell phones anyways kids still bring them. Stopping that is going to be about as easy as stopping piracy.

Sigh... The good news is at most of communication frequencies people are transparent so very little radiation is absorbed. Telling people they're see-through probably won't make them feel any better though...

While there may be biological effects, it is so obvious people are responding to what they see (WiFi transmitter on the wall) and not what is actually there in terms of radiation. Even ignoring the 60 Hz stuff, at the cell phone and WiFi type frequencies what is really bright is L-band radar for airports. But no one is talking about turning off airplane radar...

Why would that stop the internet in classrooms? I hope all teachers ban phones in classrooms regardless of the "radiation thing". As for the radiation in cells phones....I have no idea...

It's either wires or the voodoo cancer airwaves, I'd give it 5-10 years before most kids in first world nations are using some kind of networked device in class on a daily basis and that's going to take a lot of switches/cables just to get it available in every classroom to every student.

this thread should be a laugh with all the self proclaimed experts telling everyone how caution and discretion are stupid.

Yes, and to be sure, let's not vaccinate our children.

If the only children put at risk by voluntary vaccine avoidance were the children voluntarily non-vaccinated, I'd almost be willing to just let Darwin do his thing. I've seen polio in elderly people though, and conscience forbids me from wishing that on anyone's innocent children.

uhuznaa wrote:

Don't worry, the kids will kill everyone trying this.

Heh. I've never thought of, "won't someone think of the children," in quite that way before.

Excuse my ignorance but if that Tunicliffe woman in England cannot bear to be near *any* electromagnetic radiation....

Does she live in permanent darkness because visible light would also cause excruciating pain?

aaaaand.... I thought low power EM waves were virtually inescapable no matter where you were/are on earth even if you don't include light...... she must be in horrendous pain almost all the time

/snark off

On a serious note, "recommendations include encouraging governments to "pay heed to and protect 'early warning' scientists" I think is just bollocks. Listening to 'early warning scientists' I think serves no good purpose and only really causes hysteria among the populace, witness the terrible fallout from the false vaccines cause autism paper. That was hailed as a 'early warning' paper but only served to ruin the lives of children who got sick for no reason other than their parents erroneously believed that their children would become disabled, and thus failed to vaccinate them. No amount of truthful studies will ever move these parents back to the 'real world'.

I say that the recommendation is bollocks because this paper/council very strongly gives the impression, especially when viewed in context of their rather extreme directives, appears to set a course that as soon as a 'early warning paper' came out, they would take rather drastic and ultimately harmful steps to nullify a percieved problem.

Instead of paying heed to and protecting early warning scientists, what should be done is that their findings be noted and verified before any legislation is effected. Legislative bodies are notoriously ineffective and once set on a course, hard to stop, and if directives are given at the slightest hint of a problem, soon we become stuck in a quagmire of well meaning legislation that only serves to be a dysfunctional mess.

Final bit of snark that I just had to put in:Formulating "a human rights oriented definition" of precautionary ALARA emissions would just fail because human rights always seeks to protect the lowest common denominator and that would be the people who cannot stand any EM at all, so the only option would be to destroy/prevent every source of EM radiation in the universe....That would be mighty hard...

Haven't electrosensitivism (for lack of a better term) been disproved in numerous double-blind tests that showed it was just a hypochondriac response to having the actual objects (phones, wi-fi enabled devices, etc) near them, and unrelated to the presence, or lack, of any electromagnetic fields?

I love technology and use my mobile all the time. But when a mobile phone company recently wanted to install a tower on our apartment building, the residents (myself included) said "I don't think so". In the end we had to take it to the federal government but we got the carrier to back off (the law allows them to install it even without the residents consent).

Moral of the story: (warning: Metaphor ahead) Air travel is great, but there no way in hell i'm letting you build an airport in my backyard.

the report [Authored by Luxembourg MP and Green Party activist Jean Huss] urges governments to "respect the precautionary principle"

Jean Huss is a superstitious idiot. The 'just-in-case' argument which has been renamed the 'precautionary principle' is a bedrock of superstition, ignorance and empty rituals.

I'm going to knock on this piece of wood... just in case. Let's teach Creationism in the classroom.... just in case evolution pisses off God.Let's all turn Catholic and confess our sins... just in case the Rapture happens.

Quote:

it's clear that public worries over this issue will not wait for conclusive scientific research on the question of the impact of non-ionising frequencies on the human body. This draft is obviously responsive to that global mood

You state this as if it is a fact, yet with no evidence to prove so. Where is the evidence that the public (not overzealous regulators or legislators) is wringing its collective hands, waiting, just waiting, for someone to do something, anything about the horrors of cell-phone radiation even in the abscence of 'conclusive' scientific reasearch?

By the way, the Global Warming cabal is going to destroy our way of life, but it doesn't matter because the LHC will generate a black hole that will swallow the Earth anyway. The science refuting these possibilities isn't 'conclusive' you know.